Policy —

Tweet seats suit claims the process has been patented

A company called Inselberg Interactive claims it owns the "method and …

Whether you love tweet seats or loathe them, you probably never thought they were patentable. But one company, Inselberg Interactive, insists it has already patented the seats, and is pressing Goodspeed Musicals in East Haddam, Connecticut to license their patented platform or desist from hosting "tweet seats" nights.

Tweet seats are a section of a live theater cordoned off (metaphorically if not physically) for people who wish to live tweet the performance taking place on the stage below. Inselberg believes its patent covers the entire process of tweet seating and has directed Chicago-based Global IP Law Group to pursue the case.

Iselberg, which does not seem to have a corporate website, holds a host of patents, each devoted to a "method and apparatus for interactive audience participation at a live spectator event."

The patent in question (which seems to be one of many with very similar wording) is described as:

A method for providing interactive audience participation at live spectator events. The method includes providing each spectator with an interactive device that presents a promotional message and includes a user interface, broadcasting audio programming to the spectator through the interactive device, querying the spectators, wherein answers to the querying may be entered by spectators via the user interface of the interactive device, transmitting the answers to a central processor, storing the answers as spectator data, processing the spectator data into results, storing the results of the processing of the spectator data and broadcasting the results of the processing of the spectator data.

I am far from knowledgeable about patents, but this does not sound like tweet seats, in which theaters give patrons nothing more than permission to use their own portable computing devices. As Howard Sherman, an arts administrator who has seen the paperwork sent by he patent-holder attorney and has spoken to representatives of the theater, writes, "This doesn’t seem to have derailed the claim of infringement. It does seem a bit of extrapolation has taken place."

As Sherman notes, deeper into the patent, the company, or patent holder Eric Inselberg himself, claims to own the whole process of tweeting at a live event.

"Nowhere does the patent suggest that Inselberg invented the smartphone," says Sherman, "or any of its underlying technology, nor does it make any claim to having invented Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or any other program, website or application which easily and freely permits people to communicate with each other and with venues, presenters, and producers on smartphones. They patented the concept of using such things at some point in the future when the technology became available, and now that it has, they seek to profit from it or restrict it."

The whole process of threatening this theater seems to be an attempt to target organizations that have used a variant of a method that Inselberg believes he came up with first.

I imagine that this news will dampen the all-too-enthusiastic discussion between proponents and opponents of electronic communications during performances. I'm an opponent, but good grief, if tweet seats are eliminated by legal fiat, it would be like winning a ball game through forfeit. Where's the fun in that?

It might also make theaters, notoriously terrified of off-stage innovation to begin with, even less willing to try new things than they are now. That's a shame.

We called Graham Gerst, the Global IP partner in charge of the Inselberg patent issues, but were unable to get a hold of him. Among other things, we wanted to know if his firm had any reservations about going to court, if the theaters they approach don't acquiesce to his client's demands, given that Eric Inselberg seems to been arrested last October as a member of a ring of sports memorabilia forgers.

Curt Hopkins
Curt writes for Ars Technica about the intersection of culture and technology, including the democratization of information, spaceships, robots, the theatre, archaeology, achives and free speech. Twitter@curthopkins

I always thought that you couldn't patent an idea, but rather an invention, meaning something that you actually invented and then created a prototype for. This is just ridiculous - much like patenting "a method and apparatus for eliminating solid and liquid bodily waste while in a seated or squatting position" for which you all must now pay royalties twice a day.

I think it's an interesting question. There's no doubt that this patent is asinine and I'm sure you could find prior art in the interactive classroom clicker things that are more than seven years old or the Ask The Audience feature of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire that's going on 14 years old now. In a more general sense, can you patent non-obvious changes in venue when it constitutes a business process? I don't know.

IANAL (or a twitter user) - but this patent seems pretty damned specific in what the 'provided device' does - and fair enough too, before the rise of smart phones and social networks, this would have been a freaking money-making idea.

Saying 'sit here to tweet', with the hope of appearing in-touch to those of the twitter persuasion just doesn't look like it amounts to anything remotely like what the patent describes.

You'll have to do some massive extrapolation to fit the situation. No device is given out. No questions are given out and no data is held by the theatre. I don't think they were even planning to process and broadcast those tweets to the audience.

As far as I could tell, tweet seats acted like smoker's lounge; you go there to tweet so you don't bother anyone else.

This kind of opportunistic patent tackling should be discouraged with a stiff penalty if he loses.

A method for halting automobile traffic on any paved surface that is flowing in one direction using a manually-controlled device which contains 1 or more persons that is headed in the opposite direction.

A method for accessing the upper or lower portion of a structure when being located in the opposed portion, and that consists of multiple partitioned spaces, separated vertically by a series of objects increasing in vertical distance from the lowest portion of said structure.

A method for limiting the growth of any number of blades of grass using a machine controlled by a human, that is powered by electricity, combustible fuel, or any other source of power.

A method for changing the color or refreshing the color of a picket fence by use of a hand-held tool that is dipped into a container which holds any fluid containing pigments.

This sounds suspiciously like the devices they already give to live audiences on TV shows that allow them to vote, or provide input to the show. Things like Funniest Home Video Show, So You Want to be a Millionaire (Ask the Audience), I think there was also a Cluedo like TV show as well that did it, and whatever else has audience feedback.

See, the difference between the armchair lawyers here and the REAL lawyers at the patent office is that they have rules by which they abide. Simply saying "this is stupid" is not legitimate reason to deny a patent application. The patent in question was filed in 2003, granted in 2005. We've come a long ways since then in terms of patentability and obviousness (perhaps not far enough, but whatever) but back then the rulebook wasn't so specific.

The patent system does work and will work, but now with the benefit of hindsight.

edit: And, in all likelihood, the "sounds suspiciously like x" crowd isn't much better informed. Go read the patent and try to compare your x with their y. Chances are you can't.

The patent system does work and will work, but now with the benefit of hindsight.

No, it really doesn't. It made sense when innovation was slow, and simple ideas could be the breakthrough needed to make a new product. In the internet age ideas are worth nothing, because everyone has tons, and you can do a search on Google on any subject and read about what other people have come up with. Truly new ideas are pretty much extinct. Ideas are also the easy part, it's all about the execution, and in the time it takes for a patent to be granted, new technology can come out, have it's day in the sun, and fall by the wayside. We don't need patents anymore, especially not software patents, which do nothing but stifle small/medium sizes companies and pay for lawyer's summer homes.

See, the difference between the armchair lawyers here and the REAL lawyers at the patent office is that they have rules by which they abide. Simply saying "this is stupid" is not legitimate reason to deny a patent application. The patent in question was filed in 2003, granted in 2005. We've come a long ways since then in terms of patentability and obviousness (perhaps not far enough, but whatever) but back then the rulebook wasn't so specific.

The patent system does work and will work, but now with the benefit of hindsight.

edit: And, in all likelihood, the "sounds suspiciously like x" crowd isn't much better informed. Go read the patent and try to compare your x with their y. Chances are you can't.

After reading the patent, I can't say whether the idea presented should be patentable or not.

I can say that I still have no idea what it has to do with Twitter in the least, since the patent sounds like something completely different in almost every way. From what I can tell, it's about venue-provided devices that act as voting/trivia machines, broadcasting audience results to a central location for tallying and presentation.

Specifically, all the claims stem from one of the base claims 1, 11, 14, and 23:

1: Provide devices and query spectators, tally results11: The device itself, which I imagine isn't involved in the suit, since they aren't suing manufacturers14: Presenting ads and queries to the audience, and tallying results(similar to claim 1 IMO)23: More description of the device from claim 11?

None of those describe anything similar to assigning certain seats in the theatre where it's okay to use your phone. But I'm no lawyer...

I would like to patent a method for having "a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention."

I do not know what differentiates their patent from what the Preview House had in 1966.

I have been there many times including back in the 1960’s. A side note, they used to use a classic dynamic mike (think announcer with a big blockish metal mic) as a speaker for the control booth to talk to the announcer. E.g., to say when everyone had voted, so that he could continue.

The announcer would ask the audience to vote up / down, good / bad, etc. on something about the movie they were viewing. Then the audience would vote. The announcer would hold the mic up to his ear to listen to the control booth say when everyone had completed voting. “Waiting on seat 21B.”

Moving on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience_responseAudience Response:“Since the 1960s, a number of companies have offered Response Systems, several of whom are now defunct or changed their business model.Circa 1966, Audience Studies Institute of Hollywood, California developed a proprietary analog ARS system for evaluating the response of a theater audience to unreleased motion pictures, television shows and commercials. This early ARS was used by ASI's clients – major motion picture and television studios and advertising agencies – to evaluate the effectiveness of whatever it was they wanted to accomplish: for example, selling more products, increasing movie ticket sales, and achieving a higher fee per commercial slot. Often, a client would show different versions to different audiences, e.g. different movie endings, to gauge their relative effectiveness. ASI would give out free tickets on the street to bring people into the theater, called the "Preview House," for particular showings where each attendee would fill out a questionnaire and then be placed in a seat with a "dial" handset outfitted with a single knob that each attendee would turn to a position to indicate his or her level of interest. Turning the knob all the way left for "dull" to turning all the way to the right for "great." In 1976, ASI upgraded their system to become fully digital, have Yes/No buttons and, in some cases, numeric keys for entering in numbers, choices and monetary amounts.”

See, the difference between the armchair lawyers here and the REAL lawyers at the patent office is that they have rules by which they abide. Simply saying "this is stupid" is not legitimate reason to deny a patent application. The patent in question was filed in 2003, granted in 2005. We've come a long ways since then in terms of patentability and obviousness (perhaps not far enough, but whatever) but back then the rulebook wasn't so specific.

The patent system does work and will work, but now with the benefit of hindsight.

edit: And, in all likelihood, the "sounds suspiciously like x" crowd isn't much better informed. Go read the patent and try to compare your x with their y. Chances are you can't.

After reading the patent, I can't say whether the idea presented should be patentable or not.

I can say that I still have no idea what it has to do with Twitter in the least, since the patent sounds like something completely different in almost every way. From what I can tell, it's about venue-provided devices that act as voting/trivia machines, broadcasting audience results to a central location for tallying and presentation.

Specifically, all the claims stem from one of the base claims 1, 11, 14, and 23:

1: Provide devices and query spectators, tally results11: The device itself, which I imagine isn't involved in the suit, since they aren't suing manufacturers14: Presenting ads and queries to the audience, and tallying results(similar to claim 1 IMO)23: More description of the device from claim 11?

None of those describe anything similar to assigning certain seats in the theatre where it's okay to use your phone. But I'm no lawyer...

That's the whole idea of the lawyer-speak, be as vague as possible so it can be applied as broadly as possible. Repeat until no longer profitable.

See, the difference between the armchair lawyers here and the REAL lawyers at the patent office is that they have rules by which they abide. Simply saying "this is stupid" is not legitimate reason to deny a patent application. The patent in question was filed in 2003, granted in 2005. We've come a long ways since then in terms of patentability and obviousness (perhaps not far enough, but whatever) but back then the rulebook wasn't so specific.

The patent system does work and will work, but now with the benefit of hindsight.

edit: And, in all likelihood, the "sounds suspiciously like x" crowd isn't much better informed. Go read the patent and try to compare your x with their y. Chances are you can't.

After reading the patent, I can't say whether the idea presented should be patentable or not.

I can say that I still have no idea what it has to do with Twitter in the least, since the patent sounds like something completely different in almost every way. From what I can tell, it's about venue-provided devices that act as voting/trivia machines, broadcasting audience results to a central location for tallying and presentation.

Specifically, all the claims stem from one of the base claims 1, 11, 14, and 23:

1: Provide devices and query spectators, tally results11: The device itself, which I imagine isn't involved in the suit, since they aren't suing manufacturers14: Presenting ads and queries to the audience, and tallying results(similar to claim 1 IMO)23: More description of the device from claim 11?

None of those describe anything similar to assigning certain seats in the theatre where it's okay to use your phone. But I'm no lawyer...

That's what I thought too. The claimed method seems to be about audience polling and two way communication between the audience and the event organisers. I can't see how this would be infringed by simply allocating certain seats for tweeting from.

Software patents effectively serve to make make the collective race of humanoid simpletons and charlatans dumber & dumber; but Software cell phone patents--now that's a horse of a whole different color! Within mere microcosms of social paradigms of anecdotal spans which serve to stretch scientific boundaries by way of suggestion and the layman's appreciation for the academic probity of Facebook and its recently reputed FTL qualities, we're looking at nascent discovery advancing with such rapid vapidity that generations of established bedrock knowledge and foundational buttress may be discarded at whim simply because "X" internationally-known personality believes that any impediment to "change" is automatically suspect and deserves knee-jerk rejection simply because it "must be wrong." Overtly established overarching scientific theory being as solidly grounded in the throes of spasmodic, piecemeal political reaction as it is is, there is simply no reason to ask for anything greater in terms of solid evidence or proof of the more traditional kind--ie, factual argument that might be expected to hold its own position for a minimum of ten minutes when subjected to the acidic rigors of an eighth-grade primer on why "Helium is lighter than 'air' and all of the attendant vicissitudes such examination encompasses." (ppgs. 105-112, Simon and Schumpeter, "Nature as a Neutral Catalyst to Global Petrographical redundancies when self-assertive by human egomania in varied exigencies.")

In fact, as proven often (5-12, Ibid), if the opening salvos of anti-technological rhetoric is sufficiently vapid, remorseless, and with without redeeming social benefit, then the criteria for scientific acceptance seems well laid and there is largely no thought or care expended any further in the direction of ideological reproof or weakness. None is needed since the sociological underpinnings of the premise have metamorphosed into the science, per se', of the original position, such that it can be recalled or to a degree may be remembered and so remains relevant.

In the end the so-called "debate" manifests as a pretext for bias of the most uninformative kind, bias that seeks to persuade political points as opposed to scientific axioms. Thus science and politics become immeasurably corrupted by each other, which is hardly the point of either. Thus it is the weakened state of the human psyche, as opposed to the abstract disciplines of either politics or science, which may yet both be proven as unattainable illusion, that share the blame of the failure of the victory of politics over science.

Indeed, if all that we do or deem is but a dream within a dream, then the truly pertinent question to be asked is whether Perception is but a door leading elsewhere or whether it is the door that we call perception that is actually the only Dream there is.

Let me get this straight. The theater is utilizing an idea so incredibly stupid, it defies logic. This patent owner believes he came up with the idea of sharing a live experience with others. Electronically, of course because....no one ever thought of that.

So.....stupid idea #1 infringes (supposedly) on stupid idea #2 (or is it vice versa.....think about it and decide). No money has been made as a result and most of the world is still laughing at The Stupid Idea and yet.....this dork thinks he's entitled to something?

That's it.....*slams hand on desk*....I'm joining Chris Meloni in the hunt for Kony......

(Also, this kind of thing has been around, so there's plenty of prior art. Who Wants to be a Millionare, or any gameshow that has an audience with a keypad. Sports bars have had it forever. If this patent is upheld, there needs to be riots over patent reform before someone patents the future, and we're stuck in the present.)